IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1017 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Saroj Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus Ms. M. Sudha Devi …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 23.09.2025, issued under the signatures of Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of Nisha Kumari and Parwati Sharma’s cases, have not found the petitioner similar to the afore cases, as such, have rejected her representation. 2. Having carefully perused aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, this Court finds merit in the afore contention of learned Additional Advocate General. Since there was only direction to 2 the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgments herein above and respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner, in light of afore judgment, have rejected the representation, appropriate remedy, if any, for the petitioner is to file a substantive writ petition, laying therein challenge to order passed in purported compliance of the judgment, alleged to have been violated. 3. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, the same are disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. September 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge